The Tasks of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party in the Russian Revolution[4]

Report of a Lecture

Written:Written March 15–16 (28–29), 1917Published:First published in Russian in the magazineProletarskaya RevolutsiaNo. 10 (93), 1929.

      Published March 31 and April 2, 1917 inVolksrechtNos. 77 and 78.

      Published according to the manuscript.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1964,

      Moscow,Volume 23,

      pages355-361.Translated:M. S. Levin, The Late Joe Fineberg and and OthersTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2002

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Lenin’stwo-and-a-half-hour lecture consisted of two
parts. In the first, Lenin surveyed the historical conditions which could,
and did, produce such a “miracle” as the collapse of the tsarist monarchy
in a matter of eight days. The most important of these was the “great
rebellion” of 1905–07, so vilely denounced by the Guchkovs and Milyukovs,
the present masters of the situation, who are moved to admiration by the
“glorious revolution” of 1917. But had the really profound Revolution of
1905 not “ploughed up the ground”, had it not exposed to view all the
parties and classes in action, had it not exposed the tsarist clique in all
its barbarism and savagery, the swift victory of 1917 would not have been
possible.

In1917 a very exceptional conjuncture of circumstances made it
possible to merge together the attacks of the most diverse social forces
against tsarism. First, Anglo-French finance capital, which more than any
other dominates and robs the whole world, opposed the Revolution in 1905
and helped the tsar crush it (the 1906 loan). But it took a very active and
direct part in the present revolution, organising the conspiracy of the
Guchkovs, Milyukovs and part of the army high command to depose Nicholas II
or force him to make concessions. From the standpoint of world politics and
international finance capital, the Guchkov-Milyukov government is no more
than an agent of the banking firm “England and France”, an instrument for
continuing theimperialist slaughter. Second, as a result of the military defeats
sustained by tsarism, the old officer corps was replaced by new, young,
predominantly bourgeois, officers. Third, the entire Russian bourgeoisie,
which between 1905 and 1914, and particularly between 1914 and 1917, had
intensively organised its forces, joined with the land lords in a common
struggle against the decadent tsarist regime in the hope of enriching
itself by seizing Armenia. Constantinople, Galicia, etc. Fourth, to theseimperialistforces was added the deep-going and rapidly unfolding
proletarian movement. The proletariat, which performed the revolution,
demandedpeace, breadandfreedom. It had nothing in
common with the imperialist bourgeoisie, and it gave leadership to themajorityof the army, composed of workers and peasants. The
conversion of the imperialist war into civil war hasbegun.

Hence,the basic contradiction of the present revolution—one that
reveals it merely as thefirststage of the first revolution
brought about by the imperialist war. The Guchkov-Milyukov landlord and
capitalist government can give the people neither peace, bread, nor
freedom. It is a government for continuing the predatory war. It has openly
declared that it will abide by the tsar’s international treaties, and these
are all predatory treaties. At best, it mightpostponethe crisis,
but itcannotward off famine. Nor can it give the country
freedom, no matter how many “promises” it makes (promises are cheap),
because it is bound by the interests of landlordism and capital. From the
very start it tried to arrange adealwith the dynasty, the object
being to restore the monarchy.

Thatis why it would be the height of folly to adopt tactics of
“supporting” the new government in the interests, supposedly, of
“combating reaction”. That struggle requires thearmingofthe proletariat—the only serious, effective guarantee both
against tsarism and attempts by the Guchkovs and Milyukovs to restore the
monarchy.

DeputySkobelev is therefore right in saying that Russia is “on the
eve of a second, real [wirklich] revolution”.

Thepeople’s organisation for this revolution already exists and is
growing. That organisation is the Sovietof Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. And it is not for nothing that the
agents of Anglo-French capital, the correspondents ofThe TimesandLe Temps, are so anxious to discredit it.

Aclose study of the press reports relating to the Soviet of Workers’
Deputies led Lenin to conclude that there were three distinct trends in
it. The first comes nearest to social-patriotism. It puts its trust in
Kerensky, that hero of the empty phrase, that pawn in the hands of Guchkov
and Milyukov, that representative of the worst type of “Louis Blanc
politics”, past master of the empty promise and of the sonorous phrase in
the spirit of the European social-patriots and social-pacifistsà laKautsky and Co. In reality, however, he “reconciles”
the workers to the continuation of the predatory war. Through Kerensky the
imperialist bourgeoisie tells the workers: We shall give you a republic,
the eight-hour day (which hasalreadybeen established in
St. Petersburg), we promise you all the freedoms—but all this for the
express purpose that you will help us rob Turkey and Austria, snatch from
German imperialism its booty, and assure Anglo-French imperialism its
booty.

Thesecond trend is represented by the Central Commit tee of our
Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party. The papers have published an
extract from the Manifesto of our Central Committee, issued in
St. Petersburg on March 18. It demands a democratic republic, the
eight-hour day, confiscation of the landed estates and their transfer to
the peasants, confiscation of grain stocks, immediate peace negotiations,
conductednotby the government of Guchkov and Milyukov, but by
the Soviet of Workers’ and Soldiers’ Deputies. This Soviet, in the view of
the Manifesto,isthe real revolutionary government (Lenin added
thatThe Timescorrespondent, too, speaks ortwo
governmentsin Russia). Peace negotiations are to be conductednotwith the bourgeois governments, but with theproletariatof all the warring countries. The Manifesto calls upon
all workers, peasants and soldiers to elect delegates to the Soviet of
Workers’ Deputies.

Theseare the only really socialist, really revolutionary tactics.

Thethird trend is represented by Chkheidze and his friends. They arevacillating, and this is reflected in remarks ofThe
TimesandLe Temps, one minute praising, the next execrating
them. When Chkheidze refused to enter thesecondProvisional
Government, when he declared that the war was an imperialist war onbothsides, etc., he was pursuing a proletarian policy. When,
however, Chkheidze took part in thefirstProvisional Government
(the Duma Committee); when, in §3 of his proclamation, he demanded
“ausreichende Teilnahme der Vertreter der russischen Arbeiterschaft an der
Regierung” (participation of internationalists in the government of the
imperialist war!); when (together with Skobelev) he invited thisimperialistgovernment to open peace negotiations (instead of
explaining to the workers that thebourgeoisieis bound hand and
foot by the interests of finance capital which cannot break with
imperialism); when friends of Chkheidze—Tulyakov and Skobelev—on the
instructions of the Guchkov and Milyukov government try to “pacify” the
soldiers who are rising against the liberal generals (the murder of Admiral
Nepenin,bemoanedeven by the German imperialists!)—then
Chkheidze and his friends fall into the worst kind of “Louis Blanc
politics”, follow abourgeoispolicy and harm the revolution.

Leninalso attacked Gorky’s social-pacifist appeal and deplored the
fact that the great writer was indulging in politics and reiterating
petty-bourgeois prejudices.

Thesecond part of his lecture Lenin devoted to an exposition of
proletarian tactics. He described the peculiar historical situation of thepresentmoment as a moment oftransitionfrom the first
to the second stage of the revolution, from revolt against tsarism to
revolt against the bourgeoisie, against the imperialist war, or transition
to a Convention, into which the Constituent Assembly might he turned,ifthe government keeps its “promise” to convene it.

Thespecial task of the moment, one that conforms to thistransitionalsituation, isorganisation of the
proletariat. Not the routine type of organisation, to which the
betrayers of socialism, the social-patriots and opportunists of all
countries, as well as the Kautskyites, confine themselves,but arevolutionary organisation. It must, first, embrace theentirepeople and, second, combinemilitary and
governmentfunctions.

Theopportunists, who hold sway in the Second Inter national, have
distorted the doctrine of Marx and Engels on the state in the period of
revolution. Kautsky likewise departed from Marx’s
views[5]in his debate with Pannekoek (1912). Marx teaches us, on the
basis of the experience of the Commune of 1871, that “die Arbeiterklasse
nicht die fertige Staatsmaschine einfach in Besitz nehmen und sie für
ihre eigenen Zwecke in Bewegung setzen kann”. Das Proletariat soll
(muß?) diese Maschine (Armee, Polizei, Bürokratie)zerbrechen[6].  Das ist es, was die Opportunisten
(Sozialpatrioten) und Kautskyaner (Sozialpazifisten) entweder bestreiten
oder vertuschen. Das ist diewichtigstepraktische Lehre der
Pariser Kommune und der russischen Revolution von 1905.

Wirunterscheiden uns vonden Anarchisten dadurch, daß wir die
Notwendigkeit desStaatesfur die revolutionäre Umwälzung
anerkennen. Wir unterscheiden uns aber von den Opportunisten und
Kautskyanern dadurch, daß wir sagen: Wir brauchen nicht die
“fertige” Staatsmaschinerie, wie sie in den demokratischsten
bürgerlichen Republiken existiert, sondern dieunmittelbare Macht
bewaffneter und organisierter Arbeiter. Dasist der Staat, denwirbrauchen. Das sind, ihrem Wesen nach, die Kommune von 1871 und
dieArbeiterdelegiertenrätevon 1905 und 1917. Auf diesem
Fundament müssen wir
			     weiterbauen.[1]Preventthere-establishment of the police! Build up the people’s militia into a
genuineall people’s militialed by the proletariat, into “our
state”, with the capitalists paying the workers for tune served in the
militia.Supplement the“miracles of proletarian
heroism” which the proletariat displayedyesterdayin battle
with tsarism and will displaytomorrowin battle with the Guchkovs
and Milyukovs, with “miracles of proletarian organisation”. That
is the slogan of the moment! That is the earnest of success!

Theworkers are being impelled onto that path byobjectiveconditions: famine, the need to distribute grain stocks, the inevitability
of
			“Zivildienstpflicht”[2]the need to secure peace. Our peace terms, Lenin said, are as follows:
(1) The Soviet of Workers’ Deputies, as a revolutionary government,
declares forthwith that it isnotbound byanytreaties
concluded by the tsarist government or the bourgeoisie;
(2) it publishes at once all these vile, predatory treaties;
(3) it openly proposes an immediate truce toallcountries in the
war;
(4) it proposes the liberation ofallcolonies and ofalloppressed nations as a condition of peace;
(5) it declares that it has no confidence in any of the bourgeois
governments and calls on the workers of all countries to overthrow them;
(6) it declares that, since the war loans were contracted by the
bourgeoisie, they must be paid by thecapitalists.

Thispolicy would attract to the Soviet of Workers’ Deputies the
majority of workers and poor peasants. Confiscation of the landed estates
would be assured.This would not yet be socialism. It would
signify this victory of the workers and poor peasants, one that would
assure peace, freedom and bread. Forsuchpeace termswe,
too, would be prepared to fight arevolutionarywar!  Lenin
recalledthe statement made in
No. 47 ofSotsial-Demokrat(October 13, 1915)that the
Social-Democratic movement does not in advancerenouncesuch a
revolutionary
				war.[3]Assistance from the socialist proletariat of all countries would be
assured. The foul appeals of the social-patriots (such as Guesde’sdisgraceful letter: “First victory, then a republic”) would vanish like
smoke.

Thelecturer concluded with the words: “Long live the Russian
Revolution! Long live the world workers’ revolution, which has alreadybegun!”

[1]“Theworking class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state
machine and wield it for its own purposes.”  The proletariat mustsmashthis machine (the army, the police, the bureaucracy). It is
this that the opportunists (the social-patriots) and Kautskyites (social
pacifists) are denying or minimising. This is themost importantpractical lesson to be learned from the Paris Commune and the Russian
Revolution of 1905.

Wediffer from the anarchists in that we recognise that thestateis necessary to carry out revolutionary transformations. But we differ
from the opportunists and the Kautskyites in that we say: we do not need a
“ready-made” state machine,such as exists in the most democratic
bourgeois republics, butdirect power of the armed and organised
workers.Thatis the state thatweneed. In their
essence the Commune of 1871 and theSoviets of Workers’ Deputiesin 1905 and 1917 are just such a state. On this foundation we must build
further.—Ed.

[2]“Civilian-serviceduty”.—Ed.

[3][PLACEHOLDERFOOTNOTE.]  —Lenin

[4]Thelecture “The Tasks of the R.S.D.L.P. in the Russian
Revolution” (“The Russian Revolution, Its Significance and Tasks”)
was delivered in German on March 14 (27), 1917 at a meeting of Swiss
workers in the Zurich People’s House. Lenin gave a summary toVolksrecht, and later, on March 31 (April 13), when he was passing
through Stockholm en route to Russia, also to the editors of the Swedish
Left Social-DemocraticPolitiken, in which it appeared, slightly
abridged, on April 15 (No. 86) under the heading: “Lenin on the Russian
Revolution. Direct Peace Negotiations Between Peoples, Not Governments”.

[5]Thisis discussed in more detail inThe State and Revolution,
Chapter VI, §3, “Kautsky’s Controversy with Pannekoek” (see present
edition, Vol. 25).

[6]SeeMarx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, The Civil War in
France, Address of the General Council of the International Working Men’s
Association, and Engels’s Letter to L. Kugelmann, April 12, 1871; Marx
and Engels, Preface to the German edition of theCommunist
Manifesto(Marx and Engels,Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow,
1962, pp. 332–33, 516–17; Vol. II. Moscow, 1962, pp. 463–64; Vol. I,
p. 22).